defold_start

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mechanism (bridge `start` command), the bypass behavior, and the per-game nature of options. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether an existing run is stopped or whether the game must be in a particular state, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds meaningful detail about options. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential invocation details: what the tool does, why it exists, and how options behave. The missing side-effect disclosure prevents it from being fully complete, but little else is absent for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing concrete examples of per-game options (seed, character build, scenario id) and clarifying that options are passed through to the bridge. The `project` parameter is not mentioned, but the schema already describes it sufficiently.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action ('Begin a run') and clearly specifies the distinguishing scope: skipping the game's front-end via the bridge `start` command. It also notes that GUI input cannot reach this path, which helps separate it from other start/run mechanisms.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to start a run and bypass the title menu/character creation. It explains why the bridge command is needed (GUI can't reach it), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state a when-not-to-use condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.